What Apple product/s do you use?

[GTO Assassin]

Well, I compare it to other computers I've had and being that I'm not a computer geek/nerd/specialist as you are (no dissrespect there either), I dont admin peoples pc's. I just use them. Every single one I've owned or used runs slow eventually. The mac I used for 2 years in 2006 - 2008 ran NO anti-virus software and litterally crashed maybe 6 times in that 2 years. It was very reliable and never slowed down. Is that because it's better than a PC? I have no idea. I'm sure you'll tell me that for the money I could have had a PC that would be faster, even more reliable and come with disease free hookers who love giving blowjobs whenever I want one. The fact is it worked very well.

Doesn't the same thing go for Oakley sun glasses? They are at the end of the day overpriced sunglasses.

Scotty

[IPD]

I beg to differ, what you were saying is the epitome of a generalized statement. In your earlier post, you mentioned that the "average" Apple user has a hard time coming up with a reason they went with a Mac or an iPhone. This makes sense, because your average computer user isn't you, me, Jeremy or Alan -- but rather someone like our brothers, sisters, friends or half-dozen others that use computers for the most simplistic of reasons: email, web, entertainment, and work (which both platforms can handle just fine).

I have no doubt that there are people that buy into a certain brand to be trendy, but this isn't a purchasing habit that's exclusive to Apple. It takes no stretch of the truth to tell you that for every iPhone user you know that bought an iPhone "because it's an iPhone", I can name off someone I know that bought an Android device because "it's not an iPhone." To them - that's the only argument they need, and... I'm okay with that. I don't blame them - this is how the Android was marketed: the iPhone Killer. This is no criminal act in itself to not be able to come up with a better reason, these people are your *average* users.

So, Thadd - tell me a brand that you support that DOESN'T have a following of die-hard, possibly clueless, average users. Maybe that's where I should have started to begin with: because many of the same things you accuse Apple of, most other companies are just as guilty of. I can go into more detail on this if you want (not that I particularly want to).

shaun, there's brainless fanbois of every product ever invented. yet, most of those products do have redeeming qualities justifying their usage in some particular instance--apart from the "mythology of ownership". my contention about apple is that i can find no compelling reasons to own any of their products--given the available alternatives. perhaps then, apple's one saving grace is that the consumer can choose to pay more and thereby forgo the research process. not that apple produces a superior product, mind you...but that to the consumer who their products cater to is likely NOT demanding enough to expect the highest return on investment.

succinctly, the acceptable threshold of performance is lower. i can only surmise that this must indeed be the case, judging by the reactions to every design-flaw/systemic-failure that apple subjects its customer-base to. i cannot fathom how a discriminating, knowledgeable, educated consumer would ever--willingly--subject himself/herself to apple products.

p.s.

i know just as many blackberry users who have it because "it's not an iphone" as android users. the fact is, you could have 2-dozen different mobile OS smartphones on the market...and a LOT of them would be sold because "it's not apple". i'll remind everyone that just because someone says "it's not apple" doesn't mean that they're an apple-product-virgin. i know a handful of people who switched because they got tired of the BS with jailbreaking/bricking/jobs-telling-you-what-you-can-and-can't-do-with-your-own-phone.

[stealthify]

Alright Thadd, that leads me to my next question (and this ties into what Zaroth was saying earlier). It's quite simple: let's define inferior.

Are the Intel Core i5's and i7's (Sandy Bridges) in the brand new lineup of iMacs not on par with what most other current (consumer-grade) computers are sporting these days?

Is the fact that Apple products all support the currently accepted standards in USB 2.0, FireWire 800, 802.11n, Bluetooth 2.1+EDR, DDR3 memory, and not to mention their answer to eSATA's embarrassing 3Gbps with Apple's 10Gbps Thunderbolt.

This is what you, personally, call inferior?

I call that keeping up with the Joneses and, at times, setting the bar for others to follow. Before the iPhone or iPad came around - what was there? Before the iTunes music store came around - what was there? See where I'm going with this?

You may say some of us are drinking the kool-aid, but playing devil's advocate and not drinking the hateraid is certainly turning out to be a lot more enlightening. I just want to get my facts straight here.

[IPD]

shaun, if all apple products were priced IDENTICALLY to their competitors products...then you might have a successful argument. unfortunately, the scales tip further against apple when you factor in the amount of propritary BS that they shovel out by the bulldozer. if sony was as propritary about blu-ray, i guarantee that it never would have won the current "format-wars". but that's precisely what apple does, and its why many people stick around; because they'd end up at square one because of apple's propritary BS. trust me, if microsoft played that game & eliminated apple's ability to support MS's formats; apple would be KIA.

p.s.

just because you were "first" doesn't make you the best. examples?

atari
ibm
wright aviation
kodak
motorola
patek phillippe

likewise, just because you're the biggest/best at something--doesn't mean that you'll retain that position:

luftwaffe
royal navy
mcdonnell douglas
myspace
yahoo
dell

apple doesn't have an iota of originality to its name. it may have the notoreity of having been the first to mass-market something; but it certainly wasn't the party that invented it. nor will it be the party to perfect it--as time has borne out on multiple occasions.

p.p.s.

i'm at work...but if i wasn't, i'd post the rage-comic of the guy trying to play Portal on his mac.

[stealthify]

Apple's choice of going down the route of proprietary has nothing to do with the hardware specs I was talking about. You just took my simple, black and white question and turned it into something personal: you hate that Apple doesn't just give their shit away.

You did the same thing when I mentioned the 'value' argument in the last thread. I point out that you can run all Windows programs natively via Bootcamp on a Mac (in addition to applications exclusive to Mac OS X), and you default back to getting all hissy that Apple chose not to give Dell, HP, Asus, etc the keys to their operating system.

These two arguments have nothing to do with one another. One is a fact: Apple's current line-up of technology MATCHES the standards used on other consumer-grade computers AT THIS TIME. One is an opinion: Apple sucks because they only want their operating system on their machines.

This is why it's impossible to debate with you.

The fact is, nearly every company has their proprietary goods that they won't give away or open up for others to modify. You mention Microsoft: let's talk DirectX, let's talk ASP.NET, let's talk about the Xbox 360 and them banning modded consoles for LIFE. Yeah, it seems Microsoft isn't the answer either.

p.s. - i haven't seen that one yet. I was going to link the clip of Crysis running on an iMac.

[VR-4 0wnz j00]

Apple's choice of going down the route of proprietary has nothing to do with the hardware specs I was talking about. You just took my simple, black and white question and turned it into something personal: you hate that Apple doesn't just give their shit away.

You did the same thing when I mentioned the 'value' argument in the last thread. I point out that you can run all Windows programs natively via Bootcamp on a Mac (in addition to applications exclusive to Mac OS X), and you default back to getting all hissy that Apple chose not to give Dell, HP, Asus, etc the keys to their operating system.

These two arguments have nothing to do with one another. One is a fact: Apple's current line-up of technology MATCHES the standards used on other consumer-grade computers AT THIS TIME. One is an opinion: Apple sucks because they only want their operating system on their machines.

This is why it's impossible to debate with you.

The fact is, nearly every company has their proprietary goods that they won't give away or open up for others to modify. You mention Microsoft: let's talk DirectX, let's talk ASP.NET, let's talk about the Xbox 360 and them banning modded consoles for LIFE. Yeah, it seems Microsoft isn't the answer either.

p.s. - i haven't seen that one yet. I was going to link the clip of Crysis running on an iMac.

His whole point if you actually read what he wrote, was that Apple offers comparable technology but at a high markup. Whats the point of paying the extra $500 for the same hardware?

[stealthify]

His whole point if you actually read what he wrote, was that Apple offers comparable technology but at a high markup. Whats the point of paying the extra $500 for the same hardware?

You missed a whole other part of his and my talks about this regarding the additional value a customer receives in purchasing a Mac. The value, it seems, that most PC-only fanboys like to turn the blind-eye to.

[IPD]

Apple's choice of going down the route of proprietary has nothing to do with the hardware specs I was talking about. You just took my simple, black and white question and turned it into something personal: you hate that Apple doesn't just give their shit away.

i never said anything of the sort. i've not dodged any question you've asked. i maintain that even with "all hardware being equal" the price isn't--which means that you're paying MORE for apple products. period. (and i won't even bother bringing up the "sub-par" graphic offerings that apple usually pairs their macs with).

You did the same thing when I mentioned the 'value' argument in the last thread. I point out that you can run all Windows programs natively via Bootcamp on a Mac (in addition to applications exclusive to Mac OS X), and you default back to getting all hissy that Apple chose not to give Dell, HP, Asus, etc the keys to their operating system.

you epitomize the mindset of someone who has already drank the apple kool-aid. let me explain something to you--at the expense of repeating myself--if microsoft did the shiens that apple does with its operating system/programs....apple would already be DOA. it has nothing to do with "giving the keys away". an OS is an OS. you buy a copy; you should be able to install it on whatever hardware you want. it's YOUR COPY. you've legally purchased it. that doesn't mean you can clone/pirate it--but it does mean that it's yours to use as you want. apple feels differently. apple thinks that you can only use their OS on THEIR computers.

the ironic part of all of this is that apple has spun it so that instead of appearing to be "BAD" (which they actually are), instead...apple is somehow "better" because it can "do both". and the crazy part? people like you are buying into it, believing the hype, and somehow concluding that apple is right--and it is "better" than PC. i really wish i could sell you people kanuter valves; i'd be a trillionaire.

These two arguments have nothing to do with one another. One is a fact: Apple's current line-up of technology MATCHES the standards used on other consumer-grade computers AT THIS TIME. One is an opinion: Apple sucks because they only want their operating system on their machines.

i wouldn't say "matches"...but it's got relative parity, as far as your average consumer is concerned. demanding enthusiasts being a notable exception.

and i'm not saying apple sucks because they dictate terms for use on their software only on their own hardware. i'm saying apple sucks because they are portraying that AS A BENEFIT TO THE CONSUMER. anyone who tries to "color outside the lines" with apple soon possesses a bricked iphone. that's intentional sabotage from apple. that's not personal opinion; that's established fact. apple isn't the only company to ever pull shiens like that...but it certainly has been the most culpable at it.

This is why it's impossible to debate with you.

right back at you, bub. i'm glad this thread exists. it's living proof that it's impossible to rationally debate with an i-tard. i'm only continuing in this vein because i refuse to allow the hypocracy of the mindwashed personality-techno-cult from achieving a de facto victory by remaining in silence. friends don't let friends buy apple. friends encourage friends to buy apple STOCK. why? because p.t. barnum was right; there is a sucker born every minute.

The fact is, nearly every company has their proprietary goods that they won't give away or open up for others to modify. You mention Microsoft: let's talk DirectX, let's talk ASP.NET, let's talk about the Xbox 360 and them banning modded consoles for LIFE. Yeah, it seems Microsoft isn't the answer either.

i don't recall microsoft ever telling anyone that you couldn't install windows on whatever hardware you wanted. please share if you know something that i don't; because last time i checked, there wasn't any such restriction. EVER. directX? not so much propritary as a unified format allowing publishers to guarantee a modicum of error-free game-play in the PC environment. i'll also point out that it's codified with MUCH, MUCH input from developers--hardly an "autocratic" ensamble. i don't know anything about asp.net...and i'll give you the modded xbox360 thing; but i can't sit here and watch you spew crap about MS that is a bald-faced lie. i don't even like MS that much--but i can't let lies propogate as an excuse to purchase apple.

i suppose if you want to use the xbox360 argument as a valid counterpoint to the bricking of iphones (which it really isn't...because MS has done it once; apple has done it a dozen times)...then i'll concede the point. still, it doesn't outweight the fact that the software apple has is still strictly controlled for the end user.

p.s.

i enjoy comments from jobs'...like the one about how tablets sized between the ipad and the iphone would never sell....yeah.

[IPD]

You missed a whole other part of his and my talks about this regarding the additional value a customer receives in purchasing a Mac. The value, it seems, that most PC-only fanboys like to turn the blind-eye to.

oh, you mean that so called "resale value" you get from trying to scalp it later on?

yeah. subtract the premium you paid for apple products in the first place. guess what? your beloved apple products don't fare any better than anything else (if they're lucky.) they probably fare worse. but i wouldn't have first-hand knowledge of that. i don't make a habit of buying used PC's. buying a used apple is like getting double-anal-raped without lube.

[stealthify]

i maintain that even with "all hardware being equal" ... it's got relative parity, as far as your average consumer is concerned.

Apple offers comparable technology

You see, fellas, this was all just a ruse to first get you to admit that Apple uses comparable technology - which was half the battle and has now been resolved. It is at this point that all I need to answer for (as my role of the opposition) is the $500 price difference (if you're a vacuous consumer who enjoys buying things directly from the manufacturer). So let's say you do decide to pay the full, non-discounted, MSRP price. What do you get for this $500?

I can tell you that it's not just the ability to run Mac OS X. But rather, as I mentioned earlier, the ability to run Windows 7 natively as well. And Thadd - don't you dare try to take this away from Apple. Microsoft chose to spread their system like herpes (with a cost), Apple chose to fine-tune their systems on their own machines. This is a company choice in order to gain market share and in-turn make lots of money - which obviously Microsoft was interested in doing, all the way back to the days when Gates was shopping around to find licensees for DOS. This doesn't make Apple any worse of a company - maybe they just didn't want certain hardware manufacturers bastardizing their software on sub-par machines. More likely, they saw they could make more money in combination with their own hardware, as they are clearly a hardware company as well -- which Microsoft is NOT and never was. It makes complete sense why Microsoft would go this route (including making their OS available to Apple) - they make money on selling software, to both Mac users and PC users alike. It makes no difference to them.

So here we are, the poor, unfortunate soul that bought a Mac to run Windows 7. The poor soul that has a $500 extra dent in his wallet.

1. Just from this thread alone, most would agree that Apple really spends a lot of time perfecting the look and craftsmanship of their hardware. Unibody aluminum casings, easy access points for adding/removing RAM, harddrives, etc, not skimping out on the screens they use in their laptops and iMacs. What is this attention to aesthetics worth? $50 extra? Maybe $100?

2. The piece of mind of having a system that isn't currently under heavy fire from hackers and viruses. For people that depend on their computers for work and don't have the time to constantly update their anti-virus software and system updates, how much is this worth? How do you put a value on piece of mind? $100? $150? It certainly might cost you a lot more to take it to the Geek Squad to get it taken care of if you aren't savvy enough (which, face it, we all know a lot of people that aren't).

3. What about the ease of use? Particularly for someone that may not be interested in all the bells and whistles. PC users try to twist this fact about Mac OS X/iOS into a bad thing. Yeah, Apple put a lot of time into making their system as straight-forward as can be, but for someone not like us, how much is it worth to them to not have to hunt down every little switch or system preference to turn their Wi-Fi back on? If you were to ask those "average" users we were talking about earlier, I have a feeling they'd agree that $100 isn't a bad price to pay for the time they'd get back from not having to read every single Windows 7 AND computer manufacturer technical support board.

4. Speaking of... what is the included, often free, technical support worth? Particularly the ability to walk your machine into an Apple Store within 365 days of purchase to have them fix whatever is needed right there on the spot - free of charge. What other hardware or software companies do this? It's a rare thing, but it must be worth something. Free workshops, most major cities, etc. Is it fair to say this is worth $100 too?

5. Resale value. Yeah, Thadd.... resale value. Being able to sell my two year old machine for $300-400 less than the brand new models are going for, and being able to do this consistently. For any market that is constantly and exponentially growing - finding a brand with a healthy resale value is pretty damn valuable. Being able to easily flip your computer and get a new one very two years? Value... to the tune of at least $100-150 perhaps?

6. And lastly, the ability to run Mac OS X and its ::shakes fist:: proprietary software like iMovie, Final Cut Pro, GarageBand, and an arguably more stable version of Microsoft Office 2011, etc. If you're a Windows guy, you may not always want to run Mac OS X, but the option is there. What is having this option worth? $39, perhaps? That's how much Snow Leopard retails for... versus Windows 7's $199.99.

Let's add it all up:

• $50 - Aesthetics
• $100 - Piece of mind from not being as likely to be virused
• $100 - Ease of use
• $100 - In-person, personal and unlimited technical support
• $100 - Healthy resale value
• $39 - For the guy that loves his stable, but proprietary, Mac OS X

Total: $489

Ohh, so close! If only I can think of one more reason....

Oh, duh -- to be trendy. All the girls will dig it. $11? Sure, why not?

Anyway, all these prices are subjective - to some, the value of each of the above points might be worth more than I labeled them as. To others, it might not be worth much at all. The point being, spec for spec we're comparable, but when you really open your eyes on what other values are involved there's a quite a bit out there being ignored by the nay-sayers.

That's all I'm sayin'.

In the meantime, it's getting late but I still have a thread on another board where we're discussing a much more pressing matter: which is inferior, dogs or cats.

I'll see you guys in the morning.